Can you explain more, could a lower income worker without family nearby afford child care and full time house help?

Personally the idea of no free will doesn't negatively impact my mental state, but I can imagine it would for others, so I'm not going to argue that point. You should perhaps consider the positive impacts of the no-free will argument, I think it could lead to alot more understanding and empathy in the world. It's easy for most to see someone making mistakes such as crime, obesity, or just being extremely unpleasant and blame/hate them for "choosing" to be that way. If you believe everything is determined, I find it's pretty easy to re-frame it into someone who was just unlucky enough to be born into the specific situation that led them to this state. If you are yourself successful, instead of being prideful of your superior will/ soul, you can be humble and grateful for all the people and circumstances that allowed you to reach your position/mental state. 

Thanks, that sated my curiosity nicely. Just so you know I'm not trying to pretend I've optimised my child's upbringing, just doing the best I can like most parents I know. I reckon your kids are lucky to have you.

I've got a few questions, mostly curiosity and not trying to be critical at all. 

1. Regarding the purpose of this project, would you say the main motivation is academic or just something you're doing for fun. For example would you still have done it if you had read an extremely trustworthy study saying that starting toddlers reading at an early age had no impact on future academic success.
2. I've done no research on the effect of bribes and child-rearing, is that something you researched before designing the token system?
3. A bit of broader somewhat personal question - You've put a lot of effort into teaching reading to your toddler's, do you also put a similar amount of into other similar abilities. What other skills besides reading have you been focusing on.  Off the top of my head, thinking logically, basics of nutrition, identifying emotions, interpersonel skills, basic maths, calibrating risk. Again, not any kind of attack on you, just thinking about these things myself as I have a young kid. Obviously both parents and toddlers have limited time and energy can only go anki-droid level deep on maybe one topic/subject. 

I'm curious, if you imagine someone who is more conscientious and making better life descisions than you, if they were to look upon you, do you expect them to see you as some kind of cat as well? Similarily, if you were to imagine a less conscientious version of yourself? If you can find empathy here, maybe just extend along these lines to cover more people. 

Also, having a deterministic view of the universe makes it easy for me to find empathy. I just assume that if i was born with their genetics and their experiences I would be making the exact same descisions that they are now. I use that as a connection between myself and them and through that connection I can be kinder to them as I would hope someone would be kinder to me in that situation. If you have sympthy for people born into poverty, it's the same concept. 

This is important context not only for evaluating Greg Burnham's accuracy but also for the Gold Medal headline. If this difficulty chart is accurate (still no idea on the maths), getting 5/6 is not much of a surprise. Even question 2 and 5 seem abnormally easy relative to previous years. 

I have no idea of the maths, but reading through the epoch article it seems to me that this result is entirely unexpected. 

"but this year I’d only give a 5% chance to either a qualitatively creative solution or a solution to P3 or P6 from an LLM."

Sure it's unreleased LLM but it still seems to be an LLM. 

I bite the bullet. I do think it’s fine and actively good to have 7-year-olds and 17-year-olds in the same math classroom. Of course, if you think that learning is bad, you won’t like this plan to have kids learn

I'd be keen to hear an explanation of this bullet biting. My instincts tell me it's a very bad idea and I imagine most people would agree but I'm interested in more details.

I find this graph useful. I think you can agree at some point that AI will be more intelligent than humans, even if AI intelligence is quite different and lacking in a few (fewer every year) areas. If this is the case then this graph is quite effective at conveying that this point may be happening soon. 

Thanks for the reply, you'll be happy to know I'm not a bot. I actually mostly agree with everything you wrote so apologies if I don't reply as extensively as you have. 

There's no doubt the CCP are oppressing the Chinese people. Ive never used TikTok and never intend to (and I think it's being used as a propaganda machine). I agree that Americans have far more freedom of speech and company freedom than in China. I even think it's quite clear that Americans will be better off with Americans winning the AI race. 

The reason I am cautious boils down to believing that as AI capabilities get close to ASI or powerful AI, governments (both US and Chinese) will step in and basically take control of the projects. Imagine if the nuclear bomb was first developed by a private company, they are going to get no say in how it is used. This would be harder in the US than in China but it would seem naive to assume it can't be done. 

If this powerful AI is able to be steered by these governments, when imagining Trump's decisions VS Xi's in this situation it seems quite negative either way and I'm having trouble seeing a positive outcome for the non-American, non-Chinese people. 

On balance, America has the edge, but it's not a hopeful situation if powerful AI appears in the next 4 years. Like I said, I'm mostly concerned about the current leadership, not the American people's values.